Logic (nested quantifiers)

  • Thread starter Miike012
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Logic
  • #1
1,009
0
Can someone tell me if my statement is equivalent to the one in the paint document?

My statement:
x and y will define all people
P(x): "x is a parent"
F(x): "x is female"
M(x,y): " x is the mother of y"

My answer is boxed in the paint doc (SECOND POST)
 

Attachments

  • SOLMD.jpg
    SOLMD.jpg
    16.7 KB · Views: 370
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
My answer
Sorry, for some reason when I was trying to edit me first post I was unable to add another pic
 

Attachments

  • SOLMD.jpg
    SOLMD.jpg
    19.1 KB · Views: 382
  • #3
The ##\forall x## has no effect because the next ##\exists x## covers the whole block, so we can drop the ##\forall x##. Try changing ##\forall x## to ##\forall z## to see the effect that it is having on the statement. What name the variable has changes nothing.

So your statement means there is at least one person who is not female or not a parent or is someone's mother.
 
  • #4
verty said:
The ##\forall x## has no effect because the next ##\exists x## covers the whole block, so we can drop the ##\forall x##. Try changing ##\forall x## to ##\forall z## to see the effect that it is having on the statement. What name the variable has changes nothing.

So your statement means there is at least one person who is not female or not a parent or is someone's mother.

Ok thank you. could you take a look at two more?
 

Attachments

  • aaaa.jpg
    aaaa.jpg
    10.4 KB · Views: 370

Suggested for: Logic (nested quantifiers)

Replies
3
Views
694
Replies
2
Views
451
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
37
Views
4K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Back
Top